Strictly speaking, I don't believe that Jesus ever suggested leaving the Jewish religion. He was a Jew and he never did. He simply was promoting a social change where it was okay to eat with all types of people and not put up with all the cleanliness rules, among other things. It was a terrible miscalculation on his part to go to Jerusalem at that particular time when the Romans were expecting trouble and inclined to end it before it began. Any other time, and he could have preached his radical ideas, no problem. But there you have it, a country guy not understanding big city politics. The Jews didn't have a problem with prophets and teachers. So "real" Christians should all be Reformed Jews.

A new religion was Paul's idea. Christians are really followers of Paul rather than Jesus. I wonder if that ever gets Jesus' goat in heaven or he even let Paul in?

_________________Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius

tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man. I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)

No, Catholics are Christians. We believe Christ is the son of God. We follow the teachings of Christ...hence the CHRISTIAN title. Catholicism does not promote idolatry.As to "nonbiblical ritual"... I haven't seen ONE protestant preaching the way it was done in the bible. Christ didn't put on his Sunday suit and go stand in a nice warm/cool church and pound a pulpit.

Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants-we identified with all the so-called fringe groups that have been under active supression for the last 2000 years....and yes, Jesus did put on his best Sabbath clothes and go to synagogue and pound the pulpitand under the strict original monotheist interpretation of the 10 commandments-Icons,Saints,the adoration of people other than God the Father, and even respect for Kings-are all forms of Idolatry

Say what you want about Catholics, but at least we respect that others have their religions and that should be respected. Conversion is not something that should be aggressively pursued, OR purchased. Telling someone, "I'm not giving you no food or aid until you listen to me preach" is a threat and a bribe. Beating someone into conversion is NOT honest conversion. Do you really think God doesn't know?

maybe Modern Catholics... but y'all are being Judged by your 1500 year historyfrom the forced conversion of Pagans to the military suppression of all dissenters-"kill them all; let God sort them out", to Columbus to the rice Catholics of Japan and China-no clean hands here

relgious tolerance is the original Baptist creedo-everyone is allowed to worship in the way they choose-we just want our shot to present the truth as we see it as well

tmarie64 wrote:Really? WHERE, exactly, can you find me a fire and brimstone, "Y'all are all goin' ta hell if ya don't change your ways and think EXACTLY as I do"...speech? Because the Jesus that I've learned about NEVER shouted, NEVER threatened. He was a gentle man of peace. He didn't denigrate.

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mr 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Lu 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Mt 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. Mt 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.Lu 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! {straitened: or, pained} 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

but I was really thinking of your Sunday suit comment:

Mr 1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

Mr 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

Lu 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

gillyflower wrote:Strictly speaking, I don't believe that Jesus ever suggested leaving the Jewish religion. He was a Jew and he never did. He simply was promoting a social change where it was okay to eat with all types of people and not put up with all the cleanliness rules, among other things. It was a terrible miscalculation on his part to go to Jerusalem at that particular time when the Romans were expecting trouble and inclined to end it before it began. Any other time, and he could have preached his radical ideas, no problem. But there you have it, a country guy not understanding big city politics. The Jews didn't have a problem with prophets and teachers. So "real" Christians should all be Reformed Jews.

and what about the scriptures where his disciples begged him not to go to Jerusalem? or his teachings that seeds have to be buried before there is new life? or to follow him to the Cross?

Yes, but think, Dave, what he might have accomplished by living! Instead of having Paul and others put words in his mouth, he could have spoken for himself. Instead of Paul starting a new religion and the Romans taking it over and merging it with their favorite Pagan celebrations and stories, Jesus could have become a major mover and shaker in the Jewish religion.

Some Christians today talk about a Jesus that never existed - they are talking about Paul, Rome and the Catholic churches creation, rather than the man that existed and what he was actually preaching about. They have taken him out of his time.

I'm not so sure bigger is better. Is it better to have lots of people ignorant of Jesus and following Paul's ideas that Jesus never intended or is it better to have a smaller following that actually understands what the original Jesus wanted?

_________________Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius

Of course, modern Christians rationalize it away by saying that their god allowed it to go the way that he wanted - it was Yahweh's will at work! It must be Yahweh's will that a lot less people go to church these days too, following that line of thought.

_________________Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius

gillyflower wrote:Of course, modern Christians rationalize it away by saying that their god allowed it to go the way that he wanted - it was Yahweh's will at work! It must be Yahweh's will that a lot less people go to church these days too, following that line of thought.

You know, I have heard this argument made to mourners at funerals. That it was god's will that they be taken when they were. I realize they are trying to come up with something comforting for the people grieving, but I have always thought this was one of the most inappropriate things one could say to someone.

Okay, that was off topic, I realize that now.

Let's resume the discussion.

We have nothing written by Jesus. Nothing. We have Jesus through Paul's eyes, Jesus though Peter's eyes, Jesus through someone pretending to be Peter's eyes, Jesus through someone pretending to be Paul's eyes, and on and on and on. We can't know what Jesus wanted, but I can't imagine he wanted to be worshiped. He was Jewish. It is tantamount to blasphemy.

_________________Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve.

Still OT: The whole God's Will thing just never made sense to me. It goes like this: I don't go to church, which could be put down to God's Will, only today's Christians say it's not God's will, it is my choice. It is God's Will that the bible was written as it was except - what if all those people made it their choice and ignored God's Will? We could be reading something God never intended, yes? Besides, it makes poor Yahweh out to be powerless, never a good thing.

_________________Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius

gillyflower wrote:Still OT: The whole God's Will thing just never made sense to me. It goes like this: I don't go to church, which could be put down to God's Will, only today's Christians say it's not God's will, it is my choice. It is God's Will that the bible was written as it was except - what if all those people made it their choice and ignored God's Will? We could be reading something God never intended, yes? Besides, it makes poor Yahweh out to be powerless, never a good thing.

I am amazed at how often people try to limit Yahweh's powers in one breath, and then say he is all powerful in the next. Maybe people just can't wrap their minds around what all-powerful really means.

_________________Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve.

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:Catholocism with its statues, saints, ritual, etc. is just too pagan influenced for me to see it as in line with Christianity. There are pagan elements throughout most Christian traditions (yule, easter, halloween, etc) but it's pretty extreme there.

Hollywood could learn a lot--and may well have--from scrutinizing the decor and rituals of Catholicism.

As hubby rather waggishly puts it, "When the head dude wears a long white dress, pointy hat and clearly isn't in the KKK, you've got some really peculiar goings-on there."

Did you know that one reason why some of the popular saints like "Mr. Christopher--patron of travelers" were busted about 40 years ago is that even though they'd long been part of the canon no evidence could be found they'd actually existed? Can't remember the female saint's name, but I remember reading an article in Life magazine about how an entire Catholic school was going to have to be renamed and partially redecorated because its patron was one of the debunked.

If you read some of the earliest saints' stories, you truly wonder if these aren't mere legends. Of course, some of them clearly are thinly disguised Pagan god and goddess myths...the original St. Brigid for one.

Co-opt the locals' deities and create a bunch of saints' biographies for them. Worked rather well back before the peasantry could read.

gillyflower wrote:Still OT: The whole God's Will thing just never made sense to me. It goes like this: I don't go to church, which could be put down to God's Will, only today's Christians say it's not God's will, it is my choice. It is God's Will that the bible was written as it was except - what if all those people made it their choice and ignored God's Will? We could be reading something God never intended, yes? Besides, it makes poor Yahweh out to be powerless, never a good thing.

"God's will" and "free will/choice" constitutes a paradox. God cannot be promoting any will of his own while giving people a choice of their OWN will. I see no reason to believe anything other than men constructing the canon the way they wanted it. I see no reason to believe that whoever wrote stuff under the name of "Paul" included in his OWN thoughts and philosophies, including the male centered ideology of the day [ie. women remain silent, etc]. If you really look at the bible with an open mind, you will see just how . . . HUMAN. . . .the book can really be. And considering how people were back then, it makes sense.

Davelaw wrote:Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants-we identified with all the so-called fringe groups that have been under active supression for the last 2000 years....and yes, Jesus did put on his best Sabbath clothes and go to synagogue and pound the pulpit

and under the strict original monotheist interpretation of the 10 commandments-Icons,Saints,the adoration of people other than God the Father, and even respect for Kings-are all forms of Idolatry

Davelaw wrote:Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants-we identified with all the so-called fringe groups that have been under active supression for the last 2000 years....and yes, Jesus did put on his best Sabbath clothes and go to synagogue and pound the pulpit

and under the strict original monotheist interpretation of the 10 commandments-Icons,Saints,the adoration of people other than God the Father, and even respect for Kings-are all forms of Idolatry

Active suppression?

I was trying avoid the Monty Python joke-"I'm being oppressed, I'm being Oppressed"

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:Catholocism with its statues, saints, ritual, etc. is just too pagan influenced for me to see it as in line with Christianity. There are pagan elements throughout most Christian traditions (yule, easter, halloween, etc) but it's pretty extreme there.

Hollywood could learn a lot--and may well have--from scrutinizing the decor and rituals of Catholicism.

As hubby rather waggishly puts it, "When the head dude wears a long white dress, pointy hat and clearly isn't in the KKK, you've got some really peculiar goings-on there."

Did you know that one reason why some of the popular saints like "Mr. Christopher--patron of travelers" were busted about 40 years ago is that even though they'd long been part of the canon no evidence could be found they'd actually existed? Can't remember the female saint's name, but I remember reading an article in Life magazine about how an entire Catholic school was going to have to be renamed and partially redecorated because its patron was one of the debunked.

If you read some of the earliest saints' stories, you truly wonder if these aren't mere legends. Of course, some of them clearly are thinly disguised Pagan god and goddess myths...the original St. Brigid for one.

Co-opt the locals' deities and create a bunch of saints' biographies for them. Worked rather well back before the peasantry could read.

Don't forget St. Josaphat who was really a mangled version of Guatama Siddartha and St. Ursula was the name you were looking for.

gillyflower wrote:Yes, but think, Dave, what he might have accomplished by living! Instead of having Paul and others put words in his mouth, he could have spoken for himself. Instead of Paul starting a new religion and the Romans taking it over and merging it with their favorite Pagan celebrations and stories, Jesus could have become a major mover and shaker in the Jewish religion.

Some Christians today talk about a Jesus that never existed - they are talking about Paul, Rome and the Catholic churches creation, rather than the man that existed and what he was actually preaching about. They have taken him out of his time.

I'm not so sure bigger is better. Is it better to have lots of people ignorant of Jesus and following Paul's ideas that Jesus never intended or is it better to have a smaller following that actually understands what the original Jesus wanted?

We have radically different views of the past. I believe a supernaturally resurrected Jesus personally taught Paul for three years in the Sinaii.

Davelaw wrote:Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants-we identified with all the so-called fringe groups that have been under active supression for the last 2000 years....and yes, Jesus did put on his best Sabbath clothes and go to synagogue and pound the pulpit

and under the strict original monotheist interpretation of the 10 commandments-Icons,Saints,the adoration of people other than God the Father, and even respect for Kings-are all forms of Idolatry

Active suppression?

I was trying avoid the Monty Python joke-"I'm being oppressed, I'm being Oppressed"

I'm just wondering if it is an actual belief that you guys think your being actively suppressed, or oppressed, or whatever you want to call it.

Davelaw wrote:Don't forget St. Josaphat who was really a mangled version of Guatama Siddartha and St. Ursula was the name you were looking for.

Thanks for the suggestion, Dave, but it wasn't Ursula. The name started with a "p" and was a really odd one, a name I'd never even heard of before. [Ed to add: AHA! I found it. It was Philomena, removed from the canon in 1961 when I'd have been about 11, another quite legendary sounding story but not as fanciful as Christopher's.]

I really regretted the change from St. to Mr. for Christopher. I always rather liked that story although I don't think much of anyone really believed that he'd forged a river carrying on his shoulders an unusually heavy young child who'd asked to be taken across and was then discovered to be the Child Jesus who was so heavy, the story goes, because He carried the weight of the world (or sins of, depending on the version) on His shoulders.

Sometimes, I miss Catholicism with all its trappings. I doubt that anyone not raised Catholic could ever understand how exalting and uplifting it can be walking into a beautiful sanctuary with banks of burning votive candles in front of the images of Mary and whatever other saints may be depicted at the side altars, the faint aroma of incense in the air, lovely stained glass windows...all those "visual calls to worship," as a nun once referred to them.

Last edited by DotNotInOz on Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

Davelaw wrote:and I'm way on the other end of the spectrum being on the verge of total Iconoclism; when I go inside my ex's MS Lutheran; I freak out when I see all the statues: angels with swords, sinners in chains

as aside-my ex's Missouri Synod church really doesn't fit your description at all-they are more like High Church Baptists that happen to infant Baptize and sing hymns in german.

Hmmm, ya don't say? Well, admittedly, my experience with churches of that branch of Lutheranism is pretty limited, total of three I've been inside and several others described to me by a MS pastor's daughter who was a student of mine years ago.

The one in my old hometown was really very similar to the Catholic. The interior wasn't as elaborate, but the service order was nearly identical with many of the same prayers. Of course, when I was growing up, ours were in Latin and theirs definitely weren't.